Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Patna High Court

Dilip KumarversusThe State of Bihar

Decided
Disposal
BAIL GRANTED

Holding

The Court held that anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner, subject to conditions, as the allegations did not warrant denial of bail.

Summary

Dilip Kumar, the registered owner of a pickup van seized for allegedly transporting eight cows illegally, was charged under Sections 303(2), 317(2) and 3(5) of the B.N.S. and Sections 3 and 11(3)(d) of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act. He contended that he was unaware of the nature of the consignment because the van had been hired to Sunil Kumar, and asserted his clean antecedents. The State opposed his request for anticipatory bail. The Court, considering the general nature of the accusations, the petitioner’s clean record and the lack of direct involvement, granted anticipatory bail subject to a bail bond of Rs.10,000 with two sureties and conditions under Section 482(2) of the B.N.S.S. The order applies if the petitioner is arrested or surrenders within eight weeks of the order.

Issues considered

  • Whether the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail despite the charges under the B.N.S. and the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act.
  • Whether the alleged illegal transport of cattle and the specific statutory provisions justify denial of bail.

Legislation cited

Subjects

  • anticipatory bail
  • animal cruelty
  • illegal cattle transport
  • criminal procedure
  • bail conditions
  • Section 482
  • clean antecedents

Judgment

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.91221 of 2025
                    Arising Out of PS. Case No.-586 Year-2025 Thana- AURANGABAD TOWN District-
                                                       Aurangabad
                 ======================================================
                 Dilip Kumar S/o- Krishna Yadav Resident of Village- Kodia Jarwan, P.S.-
                 Pinjarwa, District- Arwal

                                                                               ... ... Petitioner/s
                                                     Versus

                 The State of Bihar

                                                        ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner     :       Mr. Binod Kumar Pandey, Advocate
                 For the State          :       Mr. Aditya Narayan Singh 1, APP
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH
                                       ORAL ORDER

3   16-03-2026                  Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the

                   petitioner and learned APP appearing on behalf of the State.

                                2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in a case

                   registered for the offence punishable under Sections 303(2),

                   317(2) and 3(5) of the B.N.S. and Sections 3 and 11(3)(d) of

                   Prevention of Cruelty to Animal Act.

                                3. As per prosecution case, petitioner is owner of the

                   pick-up van which was seized while illegally transporting 8

                   cows.

                                4. It is submitted by learned counsel appearing on

                   behalf of the petitioner that petitioner is quite innocent and has

                   committed no offence. Petitioner has falsely been implicated in

                   this case merely because he happens to be registered owner of
             Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.91221 of 2025(3) dt.16-03-2026
                                                         2/2




                       the seized pickup van. As a matter of fact, the pickup van in

                       question was hired by one Sunil Kumar for transportation of

                       cattle and petitioner was unaware of the nature of consignment.

                       Petitioner claims clean antecedents.

                                     5. Learned A.P.P. for the State has vehemently

                       opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail to the

                       petitioner.

                                     6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the

                       case, general and omnibus nature of accusation and clean

                       antecedents of the petitioner, the prayer for grant of anticipatory

                       bail to the petitioner is allowed.

                                     7. Accordingly, in the event of arrest/surrender within

                       a period of eight weeks from today, let the above named

                       petitioner be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail-bond of Rs.

                       10,000/- (ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount

                       each to the satisfaction of learned C.J.M., Aurangabad in

                       connection with Aurangabad (Town) P.S. Case No. 586 of 2025,

                       subject to condition as laid down under Section 482(2) of the

                       B.N.S.S..



                                             (Prabhat Kumar Singh, J)
shashank/-
U      T


Continue reading with your account

Sign in to read the full judgment. It’s free.

Sign in to read

Checking your session…

For a signed copy suitable for filing, refer to the court's website.